![]() |
Originally Posted by USMCFLYR
(Post 2275848)
I don't know if it was planned this way - but from my understanding, the *new* parallel runway was built to close to the original runway and they will be using the *old* runway as a parallel surface as a taxiway.
This could be an old wive's tale :confused: |
Originally Posted by N6279P
(Post 2275863)
That's not true at all. The airline I work for operated all of its flights there yesterday.
|
Similar thing in Ashville, NC.
Single runway at airport needed to be extended. So they built a temp runway right next to it and numbered it 35 instead if 34. Never knew how wide 150' is till I landed in a 100' wide runway on the RJ in hard IMC. Im sure the airbus folks love it also. At least the put an ILS on the temp. runway there. |
Originally Posted by 2StgTurbine
(Post 2275851)
I don't think XNA is big enough to warrant parallel runways. I think the previous post about needing a new runway was more accurate. It may have something to do with a minimum distance needed between the runway and the parallel taxiway. I know a few airports that had to move the runway further from the taxiway.
|
The ILS 34 in XNA is operational. Different freq than charted.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:27 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands